Trump will try to do this on the 4th of July and opposition will be painted as people who hate America and are protesting our military on the 4th of July

Messaging here is key. Instead of a "protest" call it a "peaceful rally and march."

If the community does an action on July 4th, you don't want that action as painted "anti-military". You want the action to be "pro" something.

If you do a peace rally, you'd want it to be led by veterans, like the Veterans for Peace chapter in Portland. In addition, you'd want to invite out members of the minority communities, especially those from foreign countries we're looking to go to war with.

These sort of political actions were my bread and butter years ago. If someone wants to host this, Portland's peace and justice community has the infrastructure to make it happen pretty easily.

dis-unified women's parade

The drama around that has been linked in this sub before. Basically a convicted con artist weaseled their way to the center of the event, then fled to Canada with proceeds.

I think you're not alone. I also work downtown, also deal with these protests as well. Ironically, for several years I was a major organizer of these large protests. I go into my thoughts on protesting here, and I do think there are many alternatives depending upon the goal.

What would be a rational goal here, for this issue? What is practical and a good use of our time?

I have lots of ideas on this, but this is the question we should be asking. I'm open to all ideas.

Lots of young people think "protest", but what they ultimately want to do is an action of some sort. That's wonderful, we can channel that energy into a thoughtful action that generates media exposure and gets people thinking. Producing a dramatic action takes a combination of a good idea, creative thinking, street theater, costumes, and at least a few really good volunteers.

There's real risk of criminal and civil penalties for organizing a protest, especially if you suspect more than 150 people will show up.

If you want to go stand around with a sign, that's fine. If you want to organize a serious resistance movement that includes getting our state and political representatives on board, let me know. This is an issue worth fighting over, and I don't think signs in front of near empty building is the proper tactic to oppose legislation being written 3,000 miles away. YMMV.

If you know him personally, tell him I'm interested in being his editor or at least collaborating. I have about 8 years of marketing experience bundled with about 10 years of public relations experience, plus I'm an Oregon native, military veteran, and have buttloads of political activism experience.

you do not have to let the police inspect your weapon if you have a license. Also the law make no mention that I have to provide my license to the officer.

Dude. Seriously.

Think about this. You're proposing some nonsense logic here.

PPB will arrest you unless you show them your CHL.

I've actually put my neck on the line for this before, I've actually interviewed a police officer while carrying a loaded Keltec SU-16C on the streets of Portland, and straight asked the cop. It's on video.

The police cannot ask to see your CHL unless they suspect you of committing a crime. The Oregon courts decided that just the act of open carrying alone does not constitute enough PC for the police to demand to see your CHL or face arrest.

This is incredibly bad advice.

The City of Portland has a specific clause that allows police to inspect your firearm at any time. Carrying a loaded firearm is a crime with a mandatory minimum of 30 days in jail.

Your magazines (and clips) must also be unloaded while in a public place.

People exempt from this include: A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun, and persons travelling to and from an established target range, whether public or private, for the purpose of practicing shooting targets at the target ranges.

"It is unlawful for any person who possesses a firearm, clip or magazine in or upon a public place, or while in a vehicle in a public place, to refuse to permit a police officer to inspect that firearm after the police officer has identified him or herself as a police officer. "

Regardless of the law, if you show up anywhere downtown with a firearm on display, and you cause some type of public disturbance (even if it's in no way your fault), you're in for some shit. You don't want to be Marked Guardian's dumbass and make us all look bad.

As a firearm activist I'd recommend you do NOT practice Open Carry of long rifles for any sort of political purpose.

If you're looking to do political activism around the second amendment I'm happy to get together for beers or coffee and talk about it, perhaps even support your projects. I have a good amount of political experience and am happy to talk.

If you're open carrying for defensive purposes, that's a bit of a different story.

The core thing you need to focus on is looking professional, being well dressed, and staying vigilant while out in public. You also need to change some of your defensive postures and equipment, for example having a retention holster and being able to grapple with people.

Chair Prozanski and members of the committee – My name is JL Dunn, born in Portland, I served in the US Air Force from 2003 to 2007, when I came home I co-founded the Oregon Chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War. I have dedicated substantial parts of my life to advancing world peace, creating safer communities, and upholding my Oath to the Constitution. It is in fulfilment of my Oath that I am here today.

The legislation will do nothing to make Oregonians safer and will create enormous barriers to self-defense for many Oregonians. First understand: criminals do not buy guns on the “secondary market” as proponents would have you believe. Most of the secondary market is rifles, shotguns, and defensive pistols. Criminals prefer a specific class of weaponry: small caliber pistols - and they buy them through Straw Buyers. For example, before the store Gun Broker closed in Tigard, I was in there while 4 thugs and 2 women who were shopping for “gats”, the men were handling pistols, the women filling out paperwork, surely the women would later claim the weapons were lost or stolen, when in fact they were just being shuffled through a criminal organization. The dealer didn’t care, he probably closed $5,000 in business that afternoon. The ATF has estimated for decades that over 50% of firearms used in crimes come from just a small percentage of gun dealers. If one wanted to protect Oregonians and make safer communities, it would make sense to start at the largest source of illegal weapons in this state. Directing the funds necessary to support SB941 to a program that enables OSP to conduct investigations into dealers knowingly selling to straw buyers is a much better use of money to reduce crime. One full time investigator shutting down illicit gun dealers is infinitely more useful than ten full time people working at a call center.

Proponents of this legislation have never studied firearm market places. They have used manufactured statistics (already disproved by Politifact) to advance their agenda, such as the bold lie that this will make Oregonians safer when in fact most states who have implemented these policies have a higher crime rate than Oregon, for example New Jersey and New York, and this legislation has not impacted crime in Washington or other areas. I beg of you, before voting on this legislation, ask a police officer, gun dealer, or industry insider if this will impact crime – they will all tell you this legislation is pointless, onerous, and dangerous.

This legislation will create enormous barriers to Oregonians. For example, my friend, a disabled veteran, currently lives in Fields, Oregon – population of 12, less than one hundred people live in the greater area. His nearest licensed gun dealer is 114 miles away in Hines, Oregon. Should he have to drive 5 hours to loan someone a rifle? My friend wouldn’t be able to leave his guns with a neighbor he trusts for safe keeping if he travels, because of this ridiculous law. Nor could I loan a coworker a shotgun on Friday for a hunt he would do on Sunday with this law.

In conclusion, please ask legal experts and demand evidence of how this legislation will impact law abiding people, and do remember it will not impact criminals.

Any feedback or thoughts would great. Otherwise, I got practice speed reading this thing to get it close to 2 minutes.

Wouldn't that depend upon our own actions? Like, if you inspire people to go to Salem, you might influence who shows up in larger numbers.

The anti-gunners conspired with the Senate to do this, so it's very likely they'll be out in full force. However, there's a bunch more pro-gunners in Oregon than anti, and the pro side is generally much more active.

It is entirely going to depend upon how early folks show up and sign up to speak. Hopefully the bus full of anti-gunners is delayed in Portland and Eugene.

It's looking like this will fit on a Legal sized piece of paper pretty easily with two columns and 8 point font with just text. However, if I'm doing this as a handout I can include some graphics and banner images, double-sided on a standard paper, anyone have thoughts on what would look nice?

I've had a small handful of people on /r/pdxgunnuts contact me over the last month. I rarely log in with this account, so, sorry to anyone ignored (it wasn't deliberate!).

Anyways - I'll probably put together some sort of meetup for locals who want to do something. I'm a fairly experienced political organizer and am looking for folks with a diversity of backgrounds. I've posted a bunch of stuff on /r/pdxgunnuts today to hopefully get the ball rolling with internet warriors and such. I think this is a good spot to collaborate until we organize in person meetings.

Personally, I feel like this is a much bigger issue than M855. I mean, in principal both of them are flat stupid for different reasons. However, when this program is instituted it won't be repealed for at least a generation.

Instead of using the word "rifle" let's focus on "shotguns" and "hunting rifles", we need to make sure the hunting community understands how this will affect them. Also, these terms are much more friendly than "rifle" which can bring up connotations of "assault rifles". It's not as if this legislation does anything to distinguish between the perceived "dangerous" weapons and Joe Biden shotguns.

Let's try to frame the debate of transactions between neighbors. Why can't I loan my neighbor a shotgun or hunting rifle? Most reasonable people know who their neighbor is, and they're a better judge of character than a state background system.

Focus on the specific data claims and call them out as bullshit. Everytown's reporting on how this will reduce violence went out of it's way to ignore anomalies in their statistics. So, if they claim "X-number of lives will be saved" or "X-number of police officers won't die." Call them out on it and ask for a source. There's only one source of this propaganda.

Focus on New York and New Jersey. Oregonians are proud of our own political climate and own political ideas. We don't want New Yorkers paying for our elections just to enact laws that do nothing to help New Yorkers. They're meddling with us. Fundamentally no one likes foreigners trying to control our politics.

The state background system has failed. It doesn't work. Only 0.1% of people fail a background check, and of those - only a very small handful are arrested. Oregon State Police have only the most limited of ability to actually go and arrest people who are trying to buy weapons but are prohibited. These people will just turn to the black market.

Where are criminals getting their guns? Criminals are not buying guns at gun stores themselves nor through the internet. People in the gun industry can attest that prohibited people are using straw buyers (girl friends, domestic partners, or family members - sometimes forced) to buy guns for them. If that's the case, and if it's legal to transfer guns between family/domestic-partners, what will SB941 actually do? If a criminal can't find a straw buyer, there's a thriving black market of drug dealers who will also sell guns. And, when all of that fails, it's just as easy to go steal a gun. This proposed legislation will do absolutely nothing to stop straw buyers, and straw buying is already illegal. The only way this legislation could theoretically stop straw buying is if a criminal contacts someone outside of their family or a non-"domestic partner" and basically hires a total stranger to go acquire a legally purchased gun, then lawfully sell that gun to the felon/prohibited person. It's whimsically farfetched.

Where's the mental health? Why are we not trying to help people why are we trying to restrict the law abiding? How much will this program cost, and for that same amount of money, what services could we empower the Oregon Health Plan with?